Sarah Palin

A Palin 2012 Run Would Be 'Catastrophic' for GOP, Says Former McCain Aide

By Garance Franke-Ruta
The post-election sniping continues -- and how.

Speaking at the First Draft of History conference at the Newseum in Washington on Friday morning, former John McCain chief strategist Steve Schmidt took some none-too-subtle swipes at McCain's former running mate, Sarah Palin, calling a 2012 presidential campaign by her potentially disastrous for both the Republican Party and the country.

"I think that she has talents, but my honest view is that she would not be a winning candidate for the Republican Party in 2012, and in fact, were she to be the nominee, we would have a catastrophic election result," he said, according to a report by The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder from the conference.

"In the year since the election has ended, she has done nothing to expand her appeal beyond the base. ... The independent vote is going to be up for grabs in 2012. That middle of the electorate is going to be determinative of the outcome of the elections. I just don't see that if you look at the things she has done over the year... that she is going to expand that base in the middle," he continued.

Since the 2008 election, Schmidt has made several forays into criticizing positions held by his more socially conservative GOP brethren. In April 2009, he gave a speech outlining his support of same-sex marriage, staking a position that put him to the left of McCain and also President Obama.

"For the party to be seen as an anti-gay, that is injurious to its candidates in places like California and Washington and New York," Schmidt said at the time.

He also criticized the prominent role of religion within the party, saying it risked turning the GOP into a sectarian party, rather than the big tent he hoped it would be.

Comments

JakeD rationalized: :LOL!!! If all you have are claims about her wardrobe (the FEC ruled it was not a violation of any election law) and baseless "nobody", "brainless", "female" charges, I think she's sitting pretty."

Let me get this right; A candidate is "sitting pretty" when they have not broken a law? Oh yea, I forgot which party we were discussing.

Posted by: Fate1 | October 5, 2009 9:06 AM

asoders22:

More than eight million Obama voters will either vote FOR Palin or just stay home next time.

superstarsista:

Cheney won't run, but hopefully Palin does.

Posted by: JakeD | October 3, 2009 3:50 PM

Purlgurl:

Darling Sarah is the reason the Democrats won the election by 8 million votes.

Posted by: asoders22 | October 3, 2009 3:12 PM

For a dem like me, Palin running for president would be like Christmas, my birthday and winning the lottery all rolled into one. It's a veritable comedic goldmine waiting to happen. Also too: Cheney for VP!

Posted by: superstarsista | October 3, 2009 2:11 PM

TxPatriot512:

Thank you for expanding what I meant by "sitting pretty". Can you imagine the look on their faces after libs wish for her to run and then she actually gets elected?!

To those saying that there's no evidence that McCain lost because he was not conservative enough:

My wife and I voted for Alan Keyes because McCain was not conservative enough. Multiply that by everyone who didn't even vote because he was not conservative enough. That's more than "no" evidence.

Posted by: JakeD | October 3, 2009 12:32 PM

Apparently, no one told Palin the definition of rogue is "criminal, scoundrel, a vicious and solitary animal, an unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person"

Suits her perfectly.

Posted by: blarsen1 | October 3, 2009 12:18 PM

Conventional wisdom indicates that Palin cost McCain votes in South Florida, in cities all over the country and with college-educated voters. In contradiction to that I see many right-wingers asserting that McCain lost because 'he wasn't Conservative enough'(that's why a liberal Democrat won by a popular and electoral landslide?). Like so many right-wing theories, there is absolutely no evidence to support this and there is a multitude of evidence to refute it. If these same geniuses think Palin is the ticket, then who could argue with them? Look at the way the slovenly mob that's taken over the GOP has savaged Steve Shmidt and Lindsey Graham in the last 48 hours. This shows the true character of the NeoRepublican Confederacy of Southern Welfare States - or the new GOP. As a Democrat, I could not choose a better Republican candidate for 2012 than Sarah Palin. Palin/Bachman in 1868!!!!

Posted by: streitrhoades | October 3, 2009 8:17 AM

TXPatriot512 Sounds like you have the back cover to Sarah's next book down, both will be filled in the sci-fi. Sarah will never be president. She just quit as governor, why would we trust her with a public office again let alone the office of the President.

Posted by: whatdyousay | October 2, 2009 10:58 PM

The power Sarah Palin has to shape the future of America, and indeed our world, will soon be revealed. Her leadership as Governor has left Alaska in the best position it has enjoyed in its entire history and her early resignation will prove to have been a political stroke of genius. During one of the most critical times in the history of this country she is now positioned to use her star power to raise money through SarahPAC, and her political savvy to help organize and engineer mid-term races in all the key states and bring about the power shift necessary to save our country. In doing so, she will easily build the political power base necessary for a successful presidential campaign in 2012.

As President, I predict that among her first priorities will be to cut waste in government and to expose and root out corruption – on both sides of the aisle – as she did in Alaska. It is this last point that that makes the 2012 election a ‘do or die’ proposition for Progressives at all levels.

And now, you lefties may resume your drivel.

- TxPatriot512

Posted by: TXPatriot512 | October 2, 2009 10:20 PM

YES! I never thought of that one! Somebody is suggesting Condoleeza as a running mate! That's ANOTHER good one. This supposedly super-intelligent, super-educated daughter of a minister, who never even learned how to THINK or have her own opinion yet!! Everything that ever came out of her mouth during her "husband's", I mean,the Bush administration, was a rubber stamp to strengthen the failures! Did she EVER have any idea or decision or comment of her own?? If she did, I sure missed it!

Posted by: Maerzie | October 2, 2009 8:26 PM

I'm a Democrat, and I think it would be GREAT if Sarah Palin woould run for president~~a dream come true! And that little weasley-looking guy (can't remember his name) from Louisiana, as Vice Presidential candidate. Two real "winners"!! I can't wait to read her fairy tales either. I plan to send for it from the library (I'd never pay money for it!) as I expect it is a real comedy, especially after the real story has already been revealed by her "almost" son-in-law. I wonder what excuse she'll give for having to attend 5 colleges before she finally found one that would graduate her. Can't be that she really isn't the brightest bulb on the tree??

Posted by: Maerzie | October 2, 2009 8:12 PM

Sarah Palin for president. Yeah right! That is beyond funny. It'd be a worse result that her and McCain, she can't appeal beyond the base and you can't win without the independents of this country. She won't even make it out of primaries, her Republican challengers are waiting to pounce on her. This garbage she just wrote will only give them more ammunition. I'm a rouge, I do what I want, she's a joke.

Posted by: whatdyousay | October 2, 2009 7:51 PM

Sarah Palin?

wethepeopleplan.org/

Your Welcome! ;~)

Posted by: SAINT---The | October 2, 2009 7:31 PM

frantaylor,

You grabbed that one hook, line and sinker!! LOL!! It isn't so much fun when the tables are turned, is it? Just ask Jimmy Carter.......

Posted by: MiddleOfTheRoad4 | October 2, 2009 5:49 PM

Posted by: honorswar26 | October 2, 2009 11:52 AM
"I just hope that Obama and his corrupt Liberal cronies don't inflict so much damage to this nation that we will never be able to recover from it in our lifetimes."

G. Bush has already done that. He destroyed the economy with tax cuts for the rich; a drug program that added $525BILLION to the deficit to buy the FL vote in 2004; started a war in IRAQ that had no basis in the 9/11 attack and has now left us with a very difficult Afghanistan situation; blocked all forms of family planning and stem cell research.

President Barack Obama became president in the early stages of the worst economic recession in recent history, compliments of G. Bush. This recession/depression, thanks to G. Bush, will drag on for a few years and permanently damage to long term economy.

RCharles

Posted by: RCharles1 | October 2, 2009 5:38 PM

For a democrat like me, Palin running for president would be like Christmas, my birthday and winning the lottery all rolled into one! Please let her do it - can't wait for the comedy to ensue. Also too: Dick Cheney for VP!

Posted by: superstarsista | October 2, 2009 5:27 PM

JakeD-Sorry this is so far down the line-Working!

Sarah is unfortunately not nearly as qualified as a person like Mitt Romney, or even Alan Keyes for that matter-to be the Chief Executive/Commander in Chief.

Then, she falls abysmally short as being the 51Rst Senator/White House Sitter(VP).

But, her ability to rally the Crowds...

Her being part of the National Council for a New America;

and other factors;

makes me very much want her where Michael Steele is blundering right now!

The Executive Branch needs HUNDREDS of People, and the RepubliCans need to TEAM UP!

Mitt, in these days of Economic Distress;

should easily be the First String Quarterback! ;~)

As far as Veep...

Cantor is also Qualified-as well as Keyes!

Posted by: SAINT---The | October 2, 2009 5:25 PM

"I think she's sitting pretty."

So you wanna talk about sexist remarks?

Would you ever say such a thing about a male candidate?

Posted by: frantaylor

--------------------------------------

LARRY CRAIG

hahahahaha

Posted by: theobserver4 | October 2, 2009 5:18 PM

We have had three "losers" elected in a row: Bill Clinton, GWB and Obama. If Palin was elected, we would have the worst "loser" of the bunch.

The last thing anybody needs is a polarizing female version of Glenn Beck. If the GOP nominates Palin - the Democrats will be the only political party in congress. "Bobby" Jindal, the governor of Louisiana, is the only prospective candidate so far who has a chance to defeat Obama.

In an advantageous position; also, financially well off. For example, The terms of the will left Mary sitting pretty. Although the use of pretty in the sense of "advantageous" is much older, this colloquialism dates only from the early 1900s. It was given extra currency as the title of two different musicals, Sittin' Pretty (M. Moore, 1921) and Sitting Pretty (G. Bolton and P.G. Wodehouse, 1924).

LOL!!! If all you have are claims about her wardrobe (the FEC ruled it was not a violation of any election law) and baseless "nobody", "brainless", "female" charges, I think she's sitting pretty.

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 4:49 PM

No way Palin will sign on to a third party candidacy. They would not have enough money to buy the clothes she would need for a full presidential run. Lets see... if it takes $150,000 worth of clothes to run for as VP for two months, how much money would she need for clothes if she started her presidential candidacy 18 months before the election? Anyone got a hefty calculator with a large display?

Posted by: Fate1 | October 2, 2009 4:41 PM

"f she's such a nobody, why didn't Steve Schmidt resign from the campaign after McCain picked her in 2008?"

News flash: just because Sarah Palin bails out when the going gets rough, that doesn't mean that everyone else does, too.

Posted by: frantaylor | October 2, 2009 4:36 PM

theobserver4:

Colin's wife won;t let him run (thankfully ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 4:35 PM

frantaylor:

If she's such a nobody, why didn't Steve Schmidt resign from the campaign after McCain picked her in 2008?

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 4:32 PM

B-rod:

Did you mistakenly feel the same about Bush-Cheney in 2000 (and then, again, in 2004)?

Posted by: JakeD

--------------------------------------------

Things were different then. The whole Clinton backlash and an energized right wing were going strong in '99. Nobody knew what a tremendous f-up Bush was because he had never done anything except keep a seat in TX warm and run his various family handout businesses into bankruptcy. Of course those multiple business failings were not discussed much at all by the evil dirty liberal media.

2003 was a time when daring to question the now obvious idiocy of G.W. Bush would have you branded a traitor. We were in the midst of an intense fear mongering campaign and I'd say with confidence that the vast majority of Americans didn't need much convincing that Saddam was a bad guy........that was played as hard as possible to equate to votes. A war veteran was painted as a coward and this reject crew of chicken hawks were painted as the last line of defense between the American people and ANOTHER terrorist attack which would kill thousands...maybe tends of thousands domestically. Never mind that it happened on their watch to begin with.

So my point is this:

It will take a generation to pass before the reigns are handed back to the willfully ignorant bible thumping wing of the Republican party. If the GOP wants to put a Colin Powell up in the nominated category then they've got a shot. As an independent I'd at least look at voting for someone like him as an option. The American Taliban portion is going to be in the wilderness for quite some time because they've not going to get an Independent vote.

Posted by: theobserver4 | October 2, 2009 4:31 PM

"It was always clear that he was incompetent and couldn't handle a presidential campaign."

Um, he managed to get 58 million votes for a 72 year old cancer survivor with a nobody for a running mate. He's a genius if you ask me.

Posted by: frantaylor | October 2, 2009 4:30 PM

Palin's inarticulateness and lack of curiosity are not her greatest failings. She is lazy. She is not willing to work hard but she wants to just go on the campaign trail and be a diva. She can do that as a third party candidate but she will never make it though the primary without an attempt at looking presidential. Palin may be very popular but that does not mean that people will entrust her with the presidency. Her poll numbers will always be better than the numbers on election day.

Posted by: Gator-ron | October 2, 2009 4:28 PM

"To infer that Michael Steele is incompetent because he is black"

You are the one who made the inference, not I.

I suppose it would also be racist if I said anything bad about Obama, right?

Posted by: frantaylor | October 2, 2009 4:28 PM

demostheneswashdc:

Here in America, we call it "candidacy" : )

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 4:23 PM

Well, at least we now know who was behind the anti-Palin sentiment in the McCain team. But Steve Schmidt????? It was always clear that he was incompetent and couldn't handle a presidential campaign. He has no room to talk about Palin. He is the Bob Shrum of presidential campaign managers (lower case on purpose)!! LOL!

Posted by: MiddleOfTheRoad4 | October 2, 2009 4:21 PM

"What Palin would be is destructive to the leadership of the party."

Do you really think Michael Steele needs any help? He's doing a great job on his own.

Obviously, you are a racist and sexist. It is people like you that make this country a miserable, racist nation. To infer that Michael Steele is incompetent because he is black, is simply a racist banter because you disagree with him. I knew that the racists would come out once we had a black Chair of the RNC....it is disgusting....

Posted by: MiddleOfTheRoad4 | October 2, 2009 4:16 PM

JakeD claims that Palin will run as a third party candidate. I do not believe that will be the case but that would be the ideal situation for the Republican Party. That would mean that the Republican candidate would not be appealing to the radical fringe like Jake D which means that I might be willing to consider the candidate.

Posted by: Gator-ron | October 2, 2009 4:09 PM

"What Palin would be is destructive to the leadership of the party."

Do you really think Michael Steele needs any help? He's doing a great job on his own.

Posted by: frantaylor | October 2, 2009 4:04 PM

schroe99 wrote: "We have experienced the best the democratic party has to offer for nearly a year now and the disappointment continues to grow daily."

At least we made it past September 11 without incident. Not so lucky under Bush.

schroe99 wrote: "Palin is the 180 degree opposite of Obama in her forthrightness and common sense. She is an 'open book' that I think a majority of the American people would welcome. She is also smart enough to surround herself with people with honesty, talent, knowledge, and a devotion to their country."

Oh my, thanks for the laugh. Is forthrightness hiding your pregnancy until the last minute? Is common sense saying NATO should go to war with Russia over Georgia? Is someone who is an "open book" the type of person who would take her pregnant daughter our of high school to hide the pregnancy, leaving her daughter a high school dropout? Was it honest to parade Levi on the national stage with her pregnant daughter and talk of an engagement (without a ring) or marriage (never planned for)? Was it devotion to country that made her speak at an Alaskan Independence Party convention, a party that advocates succession?

The truth is that right after McCain announced her, and no one knew her, McCain's ticket got a bump. Then we started to learn more about her and the sinking continued up to election day. Sarah the boat anchor has so much baggage that no matter what she says today or even in 2012 people will remember her gaffs, her mistakes, and the deference republicans asked the media to give her will be gone. She is toxic and anyone who runs general elections knows it.

Posted by: Fate1 | October 2, 2009 4:01 PM

I disagree that Palin would be destructive to the party. What Palin would be is destructive to the leadership of the party. The defeat of the ignorant and the uneducated would allow the party to start to showcase intelligent alternatives to the Democrats.

Posted by: Gator-ron | October 2, 2009 4:00 PM

As a life-long Republican, Mrs. Palin and those like her are not only jeopardizing the independent vote, but they are increasing it by driving people away from the party toward independence.

Her candidature would be an enormous error from such a small mind - its birth would be truly miraculous. Unfortunately, miracles are not always good things.

Posted by: demostheneswashdc | October 2, 2009 3:46 PM

"She is also smart enough to surround herself with people with honesty, talent, knowledge, and a devotion to their country."

Um, her husband is a member of an organixation whose explicit mission is the destruction of this country.

Posted by: frantaylor | October 2, 2009 3:27 PM

I don't understand why someone would say this. Let's say that Governor Palin wins the Republican nomination--that would mean she starts off with about 35% of the electorate. She picks someone like Secretary Rice as her VP and suddenly, she is going places. I'm just sayin...

Posted by: Prosperity2008 | October 2, 2009 3:26 PM

There's a movie coming out next month called 2012. I think it's about what would happen if Palin were elected President.

Posted by: hamishdad | October 2, 2009 3:24 PM

We have experienced the best the democratic party has to offer for nearly a year now and the disappointment continues to grow daily. President Obama seems to be a person we do not know and usually doesn't seem to listen to the average American.

Palin is the 180 degree opposite of Obama in her forthrightness and common sense. She is an 'open book' that I think a majority of the American people would welcome. She is also smart enough to surround herself with people with honesty, talent, knowledge, and a devotion to their country.

Posted by: schroe99 | October 2, 2009 3:24 PM

If Palin cannot get 60 million votes dangling from the coattails of a war hero, how can she possibly get them on her own? What accomplishments can she point to? Where is the experience?

Posted by: frantaylor | October 2, 2009 3:23 PM

PurlGurl is obsessed with people who are having sex. Perhaps there are deeper psychological issues?

Posted by: frantaylor | October 2, 2009 3:21 PM

frantaylor:

I said "over" 60 million, and not if some of those come from Obama voters.

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 3:20 PM

A winning Republican presidential bench isn't that deep. Since 1952 there has been 15 presidential elections. In 11 of those elections there has been a Nixon or a Bush on the ticket (prez or VP). Nixon was (4-1). Bush was (5-1). What about those other four elections with no Nixon or Bush on the tikcet? (0-4)!! Look for Jeb in 2012.

Posted by: DesertLeap | October 2, 2009 3:17 PM

Hey JakeD, 60 Million votes LOSES in this century.

Posted by: frantaylor | October 2, 2009 3:16 PM

koolkat_1960 comments, "PurlGirl and joked have weird ideas about what constitutes a sexual deviant and pervert, since having heterosexual affairs with adults seem to qualify."

You are attempting to cast a different context. Sex in the workplace is plumb stupid. I am not writing about having sex on your office desk nor in the janitor's closet.

Sex with coworkers is always stupid, always leads to problems. You only need to look to Billy, Monica and a blue dress to realize sex in the workplace, sex in the Oval Office, leads to real problems.

I am sure I am more kinky and enjoy more sexual freedom than all participants here. However, I am mindful of having sex under appropriate circumstances. I would enjoy having sex on my English professor desk, and I know the risk of problems is too high for such enjoyment.

Letterman displays he is both stupid and sexually deviant. He is stupid for having sex with coworkers and he is sexually deviant evidenced by his allowing his sexual desires to override his common sense; he chose sex over smarts.

His cracking a sexually gross joke about Palin's girl, whichever girl, is reflection of Letterman being both stupid and sexually deviant.

End result is Letterman's end being exposed while having his pants down.

Mine is not a critique of sex rather is a critique of behaving "stupidly", as Obama says, behaving stupidly for the sake of sex.

koolkat_1960, you are engaging in contextual deceit.

Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Puma Politics

Posted by: PurlGurl | October 2, 2009 3:15 PM

Hey, frantaylor, I've read the article AND other things about RINO Steve Schmidt (and there have been other Republicans criticizing GWB but he still got over 60 million votes, including mine ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 3:13 PM

Hey JakeD, why don't you actually read the article and see that the doubts and criticism about her are coming from the GOP party itself.

Bush never had to deal with criticism like this from his own party.

Posted by: frantaylor | October 2, 2009 3:09 PM

It won't matter who the Democrats nominate in 2012 or 2016 if Palin is the Republican nominee. Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, John Edwards, Jimmy Carter, whoever. Sarah Palin will not be able to get 35% of the popular vote.
There are Republicans who can win, of course. Palin is not one of them.

Posted by: wbowers | October 2, 2009 3:04 PM

B-rod (it's a simple question, really, so if you answer mine to you, I will be more than happy to answer yours to me):

Did you mistakenly feel the same about Bush-Cheney in 2000 (and then, again, in 2004)? YES or NO?

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 3:03 PM

PurlGurl and JakeD: Defensive much? Neither of you have a brain so you can stop posting now.

Posted by: B-rod | October 2, 2009 2:58 PM

Thank you, PurlGurl. If the GOP refuse to nominate her, I'm certain that the American INDEPENDENT Party would. Unfortunately, that would probably split the vote and allow Obama to win. It would be much better for all right-thinking citizens if the GOP nominated her.

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 2:58 PM

PurlGurl seems to think that David Letterman's personal issues are the reason why we should all just stop thinking and vote for Palin.

Maybe Palin is just seeing in Letterman what she sees every day in her own house.

Posted by: frantaylor | October 2, 2009 2:56 PM

wbowers:

I don't equate book sales (expect the book I personally bought) with future presidential votes. It was simply a hypothetical question. Since it is so inconceivable to many of you, allow me to quote ModerateVoter from 1:16 PM:

"Near Impossible" may be too strong a word choice. The point is the stars need to line up. I will give you this. If you get your wish and the current president is another Carter, then yes Palin can get elected."

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 2:56 PM

JakeD asks of many, "Do Gov. Palin's current credentials 'appeal' to you enough to vote for her as President?"

Yes, absolutely.

Some perspective. Mainstream Democrats and Republicans, of late, are proving themselves to be stringless yo-yos. I do not much care for either group. Bush was a disaster, Obama is a disaster, House and Senate, a disaster.

Polls reflect Americans would vote all of those folks out of office. There is equal dislike for Democrats and Republicans.

Palin represents common sense. She is better qualified to hold the presidency than is Obama but this is not my point.

Sarah is an average American struggling with the same family issues as almost all of us. Sarah and Todd struggle with family budget issues and struggle with personal family issues. They are just like us.

During her political career Sarah displayed a good common sense approach to budget matters. She did very well at keeping Alaska's budget under control as does Rick Perry over in Texas. Alaska and Texas are doing the best on economic issues of all our states. Palin and Perry both assumed tough stances on budget matters. Both are guided by common sense.

"It's the economy, stupid."

Today, our number one issue is our economy. This should be our top priority. America should be completely focused on economic recovery for American families.

We are not.

Obama is off on foreign policy, the wars, health care, cap and trade, Obama is ignoring these dire circumstances of our financially hurting American families. Obama is ignoring our peoples.

Sarah has two distinct advantages. She has this "mother hen" maternal instinct and she is good at keeping a strict budget.

Her maternal instinct will or would lead her to spread her mother hen wings to protect her chicks, our American families.

Her common sense would have her working hard at ending government fraud and waste. Palin would push hard for strict financial responsibility. She would pull in the reins on all this pork barrel spending.

Obama promised to stop porkulus. He did not. Quite the opposite, Obama is off on an insane spending spree.

I answered your question in my original post. It doesn't surprise me that you equate book sales with future presidential votes.
Anyway, one of us is wrong. Unless Palin is the next President(and, as you know, I can't conceive that), then it's you.

Posted by: wbowers | October 2, 2009 2:51 PM

If the GOP REALLY Wanted to win with a woman on the ticket, they would put Olympia Snowe on the ticket. At least she could carry the central vote, appeal to the democrats and still bring in a lot of republicans.

Posted by: Krazijoe | October 2, 2009 2:50 PM

"jonawebb:

If she sells 35 million books, then will there be a "conceivable" way that Palin wins?"

No.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | October 2, 2009 2:50 PM

hmmm - interesting 'cause I had this same discussion with a friend of mine the other night. We both agree with GFR. If you assume (not such a big IF), she only appeals to the Republican base, then the Dems will vote for Anyone But Sarah. And she's too W-like to appeal to the independents, so Blue wins again. I'm amazed that the Reds don't see this, but then the Reds have moved so far right they are off the map of normalcy. I guess this is your normal 'cycle of power' and sanity will prevail sometime in the future.

Posted by: deankagawa | October 2, 2009 2:49 PM

B-rod:

Did you mistakenly feel the same about Bush-Cheney in 2000 (and then, again, in 2004)?

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 2:44 PM

Oh please, oh please, oh please, Palin/Romney for 2012!! It would put the final nail in the coffin of the GOP. Buh-bye!

You missed the obvious point. The Rasmussen Report was given as a response to my question about a "public option" being popular, which the report is not talking about. I'm getting use to non-sequitors coming from the right to explain things, ya know, like "keep the government's hands off of Medicare".

Posted by: Fate1 | October 2, 2009 2:37 PM

JakeD:
I meant real independents, not a far-right nominal "independent" party that has zero clout. Selling 35 million books will put her on TV. As Mr. Romney found out, money isn't the whole enchilada.

Posted by: bitterblogger | October 2, 2009 2:37 PM

Run, Sarah, Run!! PUH LEASE!! what is left of the Republican party is analogous to a Jerry Springer rerun. Bring it on!

Posted by: medogsbstfrnd | October 2, 2009 2:32 PM

jonawebb:

If she sells 35 million books, then will there be a "conceivable" way that Palin wins?

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 2:32 PM

wbowers (you didn't answer my question):

If she sells 35 million books, then will there be a "conceivable" way that Palin wins?

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 2:27 PM

JakeD comments, "At least Gov. Palin's instinct about Letterman being a sexual pervert was right on."

You read my mind! I was thinking the same while I typed my article but decided this might cause left liberal brains to explode.

This is Karma, no doubt. Letterman goes after Palin, grossly insults her and her family, claims he is not sexually deviant.

Wallah! Letterman is caught with his pants down, literally. Not much to see, though.

This points back to Steve Schmidt and rabid sexism. Schmidt claims Palin suffers "postpartum" insanity and Letterman claims Palin is too protective of her children.

A bit of bad luck for those two boys truth has a way of sneaking out. Schmidt is shown to be a sissy boy whiner and Letterman is shown to be a liar.

Sneaky truth is also taking down Obama.

Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Puma Politics

Posted by: PurlGurl | October 2, 2009 2:26 PM

PurlGurl, JAH3, rwe123, amos3_3, NoWeCant, AKCoyote, and honorswar26:

Do Gov. Palin's current credentials "appeal" to you enough to vote for her as President?

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 2:25 PM

"is going to be determinative" Horrible. Try "will determine"

Posted by: kevten | October 2, 2009 2:22 PM

I think Schmidt should support the troops and shut up. Palin would be an excellent candidate for President, assuring that the best possible leadership continues at the head of our country, at least until the end of his second term in 2016.

Posted by: jonawebb | October 2, 2009 2:21 PM

conceivable: adj. that can be conceived, understood, imagined or believed.

So again, please nominate this woman. It can not be understood,imagined or believed that she would get 35% of the popular vote.

Posted by: wbowers | October 2, 2009 2:20 PM

BTW: if Steve Schmidt thinks she would be so 'Catastrophic' in 2012, why didn't he resign after McCain picker her in 2008?

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 2:20 PM

tmit:

"Let" her run? Sounds kinda sexist to me.

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 2:19 PM

PurlGurl:

Have you seen where they are blaming GWB for the Obamas losing Chicago's Olympic bid? It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 2:17 PM

Let her run.

We need at least two functioning parties in this country, and the Reeps need to run an
ideological absolutist who will lose, before they can come around to the reality of the necessity of policy functionality in the 21st century.

Posted by: tmit | October 2, 2009 2:16 PM

bitterblogger:

I am a registered member of the American INDEPENDENT Party, but I would vote for Palin.

SAINT__The:

How about a Palin-Romney ticket?

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 2:15 PM

PurlGurl:

At least Gov. Palin's instinct about Letterman being a sexual pervert was right on.

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 2:13 PM

Palin's high negatives will always work against her, but even in her rosiest scenario, 2012 would be too soon. You've got to be gone for awhile after you lose (think Nixon)so that voters will get fuzzy about why they opposed you. Besides, she can't get credentials in that short of an interval that would appeal to independents. She'd need more time because she doesn't have an administration whose achievements she could point to. Writing a book, even a bestseller, won't cut it. I predict a flurry of attention and big sales initially, but there won't be many printings--she's not thought of as an authority on anything, and it will probably consist of one long commercial for herself.

Posted by: bitterblogger | October 2, 2009 2:12 PM

"Anyone else who has not yet pre-ordered her book #1:"
Posted by: JakeD

I'll wait until its on the table near the checkout at Borders with a "75% OFF" sticker on it. Then I still won't buy it. I'm willing to bet the orders were few and large, from right wing groups buying thousands just to get it to #1. After recycling this winter the books will be ready for mulch by spring.

Posted by: Fate1 | October 2, 2009 2:11 PM

Allow me to be the Big Foot that kicks some sense into the GOP!

Sarah needs to be the GOP Chairman!

Mitt Romney and Patraeus are the Winning Ticket!

Mikey, BEND OVER!

I have a message for YOU! ;~)

Posted by: SAINT---The | October 2, 2009 2:11 PM

wbowers:

If she sells 35 million books, then will there be a "conceivable" way that Palin wins? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Oh, I do not know. Left liberals are known for forgetting to slip on their tin foil hats, which proves amusing such as this story Sarah Palin forced David Letterman to have sex with his employees. I suppose next left liberals will next have Sarah holding Dave's man-thing while he does the naughty with girls, or maybe boys.

I find Rasmussen to be reliable and truthful. I do not detect any bias. Rasmussen polls consistently agree with other reputable polls. There is the usual point or two differences but this is expected. I trust Rasmussen.

This wild eyed left liberal screaming, "Rasmussen is Fox!" is much in keeping with left liberals constantly screaming, "Racist!"

A really disgusting example of this deceit on the part of left liberals is Maureen Dowd of the New York Times shoving the word "boy" into Joe Wilson's mouth.

Left liberals are prone to telling lies.

Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Puma Politics

Posted by: PurlGurl | October 2, 2009 2:09 PM

Please nominate this woman, either in 2012 or better yet 2016. There is no conceivable way that Palin would get more than 35% of the popular vote. Ever.

Posted by: wbowers | October 2, 2009 2:05 PM

JakeD wrote: "I suspect he knows that he will be blamed for McCain's loss in her book and is pulling out all the stops before that happens."

I don't believe I'm about to say this but:
JakeD I think your very close to being right. There is no other reason for Schmidt to come out and bash Palin long after the election and long before she has made any moves toward the next one. Your theory makes the most sense. Schmidt wants a job in someone's 2010 or 2012 election and the only way he can make the McCain loss not his fault is to blame others like Palin. Whether he is right or wrong is not really important, he's doing it to cleanse his resume before 2010. But I have to wonder, if, as you think, he is trashed in Palin's book, will anyone seriously believe it was Schmidt and not Palin that sunk the ticket? Even republican conservatives? Is he that worried about what she might say?

Always nice to read about the republicans eating their own though. Like sharks they just cannot resist the smell of blood in the water if it will fill their belly, no matter what political party the prey is from.

I am using Winston Churchill's autobiography as a door stop right now ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 1:58 PM

The superfluous story on $arah Painin, the object of funny mental lust, once again receives unmerited WaPo attention.

Posted by: whocares666 | October 2, 2009 1:58 PM

"Carstonio:

You are aware that Reagan and Bush43 were elected President twice, right?"

And that proves exactly what?

So was Ulysses S. Grant, who rivals Bush43 as one of the worst presidents of all time.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | October 2, 2009 1:57 PM

Scrivener50 - it appears that your tinfoil hat is too tight, or needs batteries, or something. That is a "plausible" theory? That there is a vast right-wing conspiracy (complete with shadowy puppetmaster and multiple instances of blackmail) intent on bringing down Letterman because of unkind/critical comments he's made about republican politicians? I think you need to look up what plausible actually means. While you're at it, look up Occam's Razor.

Posted by: dcd1 | October 2, 2009 1:56 PM

PurlGurl:

They seem to think that Rasmussen Reports IS Fox News. Strange, isn't it?

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 1:56 PM

Sorry PurlGurl, my last reponse should have had Bubbette1, not PurlGurl, quoted. I'm trying to work and blog, bad mix, like texting and driving. I think I'll pull over for now...

Posted by: Fate1 | October 2, 2009 1:55 PM

2010: People will still be reading Winston Churchill's autobio. People will be using Sarah Palin's autobio as doorstops.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | October 2, 2009 1:55 PM

Axisofstupidity1:

Wonderful retort! Couldn't have said it myself -- not even close!

Posted by: JAH3 | October 2, 2009 1:55 PM

Fate1 comments, "PurlGurl wrote: 'Just 41% of voters....'"

I did not write those words nor did Bubbette1. Those words are a cited quote of Rasmussen.

You are referring back to an article by Bubbette1, not one of my articles.

Not a problem for me, we all make innocent mistakes like yours. However, there is a need for readers to know of the correct author you cite: Bubbette1.

Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Puma Politics

Posted by: PurlGurl | October 2, 2009 1:51 PM

klick99:

I suspect he knows that he will be blamed for McCain's loss in her book and is pulling out all the stops before that happens.

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 1:50 PM

PurlGurl wrote: ""Just 41% of voters nationwide now favor the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s down two points from a week ago and the lowest level of support yet measured. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% are opposed to the plan."

Well there you go, you are in a Fox News bubble. I never mentioned "Obama's plan", what ever that is. I asked about a "public option". Two polls, one conducted in September and one in June agree, over 3/4 of Americans want a public option available. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/278585

A suggestion: Turn off Fox, in fact turn off all television "news" and read at least 12 sources of direct information daily, such as the AP, Reuters, etc. You will learn a lot more about what is going on that getting it through a demogogic filter like Fox or even CNN. They typically get their "news' from these sources anyway, they just change a few things then report it, with Fox going to extremes. I'll never forget watching Fox when the Libby verdict was about to be annouced. Libby was convicted of 4 charges and acquitted of one charge but all I heard the Fox reporter say was Libby was acquitted of one charge, and that was all....... How can anyone who watches a show like that for information call themselves informed?

Posted by: Fate1 | October 2, 2009 1:44 PM

Who cares what Steve Schmidt has to say? His 'brilliance' and insight allowed Obama to crush McCain. He didn't grow a brain all of a sudden.

And his obsession with Sarah Palin is laughable. He seems like a scorned lover. He just can't quit her. It's so sad and pathetic.

Posted by: klick99 | October 2, 2009 1:43 PM

Axisofstupidity1:

You are saying that a bowl of mac n cheese has more brains (none) than Sarah Palin?

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 1:40 PM

Sarah Palin's Revenge?

IS DAVID LETTERMAN THE REAL TARGET -- OF A POLITICALLY-MOTIVATED CELEBRITY TAKE-DOWN?

Think about it. An award-winning producer for a network investigative journalism program doesn't know better than to engage in blatant face-to-face blackmail and extortion of a famous celebrity?

Come on, people. There's got to be more to this story. Here's an alternative -- and arguably, more plausible -- theory:

Someone or some entity who's got it out for Letterman -- perhaps, an entity ideologically opposed to his politics and angered by his frequent barbs at the expense of political figures such as Sarah Palin and earlier, Bush and Cheney -- receives word that Letterman employees have been pressured into having sex with the boss.

The victims of this alleged sexual harassment let their complaints become known to certain authorities, but don't go public for fear of losing their jobs. Or perhaps Letterman's employee sexual partners are themselves blackmailed into betraying their lecherous boss.

The instigating party finds a TV journalist/producer they can compromise. Perhaps the producer was himself the victim of blackmail or other pressure intended to secure his cooperation.

The producer becomes the "patsy" who is tasked with setting up a sting on Letterman.

Letterman naively (and egotistically) considers himself the victim, dutifully reports the "crime" against him to the local authorities, goes down to the grand jury, and confesses to what amounts to employer sexual harassment. (Letterman is a principal in the company that produces his program.)

CBS then has no choice but to fire Letterman and replace him with the wildly popular, up-and-coming Craig Ferguson, Dave's own anointed successor (and, ironically, also an employee of Letterman's production company).

Thus David Letterman is taken down for years of scathing comedic attacks on political figures who may or may not have used their personal and official contacts to set into motion the events that will end David Letterman's long and tumultuous on-air career. Perhaps Dave's company is permitted by CBS to produce the new Craig Ferguson Late Show, avoiding a legal battle between the network and its deposed star.

Again, all of the above is just a theory...

...a plausible theory, given the odd and incredulous circumstances which have thus far come to light.

Bubbette1 comments, "Sorry Fate1, you need to stop looking at the CNN polls."

CNN is of interest to me. Over the past two years all of my conservative philosophy based articles have been censored out by CNN. Same is true with the New York Times and Los Angeles Times along with a few other media sources. My articles are almost always rejected by left liberal based media outlets.

This censorship by left liberal media sources serves as evidence of their "brainwashing" Americans and evidence of their not respecting our right to free speech. Theirs is tyrannical socialism.

On Fox News, we are conservatives in our small family. We do not waste our money on cable television nor satellite television. We do not watch Fox nor CNN. Amuses me left liberals assume I am influenced by cable television.

I am a "rabbit ears" conservative!

My habit is to chase after truth through a lot of research via the web; I read both right slant news and left slant news along with truthful news reporting. My interest is in truth not biased reporting.

Bubbette1 adds, "...the Democrats have forgotten the Golden Rule of elections. Never PO the retired vote."

Older voters are really ticked off with Obama and rightfully so. Older folks consistently vote and their votes are powerful being of great numbers.

In 2010 and 2012, Democrats will not be able to mobilize younger mindless minions. Those two elections will be decided by middle age voters to elder voters, a block of voters who are predominately conservative in nature.

Bubbette1, I am pleased to read you citing poll results from Rasmussen. Theirs is a reputable source of truth. This reflects well upon you and your use of facts rather than wild eyed conjecture.

Good job, Bubbette1.

Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Puma Politics

Posted by: PurlGurl | October 2, 2009 1:34 PM

Posted by: JAH3

I know this may not make a lot of sense to some, but Palin gives a great deal of comfort to middle class Americans who believe in the American dream.
______________________________

JAH3, I am a middle class American who believes in the American dream, and do you know what gives me comfort? Take any box mac and cheese, prepare it as directed but then also throw in some sour cream, chop up some ham or sausage, maybe some peas and then definitely some extra cheese. Throw all that into a buttered pan, top with some bread crumbs and then bake that until the bread crumbs are toasty crisp and the sauce bubbles on the side.

Yum. No matter what is going wrong in the world, a bowl of that always makes me feel better.

But I'm also not going to vote for a bowl of that mac and cheese for president, nor am I going to trust that comforting bowl with the nuclear launch codes.

And if you think it is unfair that I'm comparing Sarah Palin to a bowl of mac and cheese -- as if somehow they have comparable skills and intelligence -- then I have to agree with you. I am being unfair. To the mac and cheese.

Find comfort in God, family, your community, good food and good friends. But please, for the love of God, family, and community, please look for things above and beyond just comfort when you are considering who to vote for.

Now you are showing your ignorance. Scott Rasmussen is a theological conservative. He is president of a religious organization. His polls consistently fall out farther right than truly mainstream polls.
It's called Google...try it sometime.

Posted by: DAMNEDGENTLEMEN | October 2, 2009 1:27 PM

Carstonio:

Oh, please, eight years of GWB was not the end of the First Amendment and of nonsectarian government in America either. The sky is not falling.

ModerateVoters:

The "stars" have to align for any modern-day President these days. If Jack Ryan had simply kept it in his pants, or even if Mike Ditka had run for U.S. Senate instead of Alan Keyes, Barack Obama would not be on AF1 today.

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 1:25 PM

free-donny:

Careful what you wish for.

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 1:22 PM

"Regardless, incurious George was elected twice. Will you admit that means that incurious Sarah can be too? "

I never said she wasn't electable. Of course she can be elected twice, but that would likely mean the end of the First Amendment and of nonsectarian government in America.

Posted by: Carstonio | October 2, 2009 1:21 PM

Talking Points Memo is hardly a rightwing Republican Fox News:

"On the question of the quality of Rasmussen polls in general, I've been watching them closely now through at least two cycles. The toplines tend to be a bit toward the Republican side of the spectrum, compared to the average of other polls. But if you factor that in they're pretty reliable. And the frequency that Rasmussen is able to turn them around -- because they're based on robocalls -- gives them added value in terms of teasing out trends."

Rasmussen is not Fox news...true...not much can seriously be compared to the vomit-spin from Fox, but Rasmussen IS known to lean conservatively in their question format...a lot can be controlled in polls by how Q & A are phrased.

On the other hand, Zogby is seen as more left-leaning. The key is accuracy. In election polls, who is the most accurate once the real votes are counted. I've found Zogby more accurate. They do NOT cover many state elections, however.

I really don't see how this makes Palin any more or less of a valid candidate. She is just either the best the GOP has to offer or she isn't.

Democrats hope she is.

TGIF

Posted by: free-donny | October 2, 2009 1:19 PM

Okay, so her book is #1 at chain booksellers. And it'll be the hot, fluffy read for two weeks, and then sitting on yard sale tables by next summer. A book being published makes for a credible campaign? Forget bestseller lists. Oprah is the arbiter of presidential candidates by that logic. Bring it on!

Posted by: 31Gallium31 | October 2, 2009 1:19 PM

To some, winning is everything. Believe it or not there are Americans in this country who really care.

One Candidate stood up for what Americans value and did not deviate for the sake of garnerning more votes. She was willing to lose everything rather than be taken prisoner by accepting the 'unacceptable'.

God bless Sarah Palin and President Obama!

Posted by: amos3_3 | October 2, 2009 1:17 PM

ModerateVoter:

Reagan and Bush43 weren't social consveratives?

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 1:06 PM

Sure they were. "Near Impossible" may be too strong a word choice. The point is the stars need to line up. I will give you this. If you get your wish and the current president is another Carter, then yes Palin can get elected.

Posted by: ModerateVoter | October 2, 2009 1:16 PM

There's an established way to decide who can run on the party ticker. It's called the primaries. And in a democracy we don't preclude people from seeking vote. Obama got 52.5% of the vote when he was a novelty. The left will lose its pants against any solid conservative. Let them scream and howl and let the next candidate emerge in the primaries, whoever he/she may be.

Posted by: NoWeCant | October 2, 2009 1:15 PM

"Reagan and Bush43 weren't social consveratives?"

Reagan was very chummy with the religious right but he didn't seem to share its theology, except for a belief in the End Times. (That's something he had in common with Casper Weinberger and James Watt.) I've read that Bush 43 is an evangelical Christians but not a fundamentalist. But fundamentalist theology seemed to greatly influence the White House under Bush, where the Faith-Based Initiatives office became a vehicle for pushing that theology at the expense of even other Christian charities.

Posted by: Carstonio | October 2, 2009 1:15 PM

Nosh1:

My "point" was only that Rasmussen is not Fox News. Now that you mention it, though, Josh Marhsall at TPM relies on Rassmussen polls, why don't you?

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 1:14 PM

Rasmussen? Did someone actaully link Rasmussen results to prove a point? Thats like using YouTube to get your daily fix of hard hitting journalism.

Rass is the pollster that all the other pollsters laugh about and in fact I thought Rasmussen had gone out of business for their embarrasing
'predictions" in 2002 and 2004.

You aren't really doing a good job of backing up your statements if you use Rasmussen as your source.

Posted by: Nosh1 | October 2, 2009 1:12 PM

I agree Sarah Palin would be a disastorous nominee. With Cheney and Palin as the two most prominent spokepersons, and with amember of the peanut galley shouting to the president that he is a lier, the Republican Party is increasing looking like the party of far right-wing kooks.

Posted by: diver110 | October 2, 2009 12:54 PM
==========================================
This coming from the party with the likes of Reid, Pelosi and now Grayson as their spokes people.

Posted by: AkCoyote | October 2, 2009 1:12 PM

DAMNEDGENTLEMEN:

Rasmussen Reports is not Fox News.

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 1:11 PM

After another three years of ineptitude and arrogance displayed by Barack Obama, Gov. Palin might not look so bad as a candidate. I prefer Gov. Pawlenty over Palin but she is more capable than the mainstream media want to admit.

Posted by: rwe123 | October 2, 2009 1:10 PM

SP would be a great choice. She would be "you betcha" trustworthy with our nuclear weapons - quoting from the debate that nuclear weapons "...would be the be all, end all of just too many people..." With that kind of clarity and articulate leadership this country can go far. Maybe SP for president, and Dan Quayle (potatoe) for VP...

Posted by: DontGetIt | October 2, 2009 1:09 PM

Carstonio:

Just starting with the basics. Your "point" was that Gov. Palin seems incurious in the same way as Reagan and Bush 43. Regardless, incurious George was elected twice. Will you admit that means that incurious Sarah can be too?

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 1:09 PM

Purlgurl-
Other than to say you are in for some extreme disappointment in ought ten and 2012, I don't know how to address your complete misunderstanding of what happened in 08.
Having FOX News as your sole supplier of "information" has blinded you to reality in many many ways.
-America did not vote far left, it only looks that way to far righties;
-Socialism is ONLY invoked by far righties and no sane American believes we Obama is socialist.
-Bush DID NOT polarize our nation: a 28% approval rating covers the extreme right and nothing more. The vast majority of America, from center-right all the way over, recognizes incompetence when they see it.
-Will you please defect when your fantasy of a big old GOP comeback doesn't happen? Because it sure as heck won't be in 2010...nobody's memory is that short.
-"By 2012 our nation will be far right conservative." Ah-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Good one!
-Palin is about as 'average' American as Vlad Putin. You're totally delusional here.
I wish I knew you personally, Purl, so I could win all your money with the surest bet ever devised: Sarah Palin will never be POTUS. Never never never. But don't take my word for it. Just remember my words when you are screaming even louder in 2013.
You should start building your unibomber style shack in the woods now.

Posted by: DAMNEDGENTLEMEN | October 2, 2009 1:08 PM

rizzo101:

That wasn't my point re: "quitters" and just ONE example that came to mind. As to your point, I doubt that Gov. Palin is as corrupt as Tricky Dick. I mean, was anyone, short of Machiavelli himself?

ModerateVoter:

Reagan and Bush43 weren't social consveratives?

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 1:06 PM

"You are aware that Reagan and Bush43 were elected President twice, right?"

Sure, but that has nothing to do with my point. Open-mindedness or close-mindedness is not decided by majority vote.

Posted by: Carstonio | October 2, 2009 1:03 PM

ModerateVoter and Vickie803:

We'll see, I guess.

I know that you and Steve Schmidt don't really like social conservatives, yet he takes that part of the GOP "base" for granted while reaching out to "liberal" Republicans. Sarah Palin doesn't. If you don't think there's enough "grassroots" support for her getting nominated, why is her book #1 at BOTH Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble, even though it doesn't come out until NOVEMBER?

It is not that I do not like social conservatives nor what they stand for. They are near impossible to get elected nationally and they even have a hard time in state wide races. America just has too many voices, idea, beliefs.

I am also not saying she could get the nomination. She is very popular with the GOP base. I hope she makes a ton of money but does not run. You think she was savaged last time? It will be muist worse a second time.

Let the Mountain Girl run and make a fool out of herself and a joke out of her party AGAIN!

Like Mc Donald's I'm lovin' it!

Posted by: ceefer66 | October 2, 2009 12:58 PM

Carstonio:

You are aware that Reagan and Bush43 were elected President twice, right?

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 12:58 PM

Rather than a wall, I think a moat between Oklahoma (where the wind comes sweeping down the plain) and Texas would be good. That way we can keep all the water for ourselves. Go 'horns...

Posted by: DontGetIt | October 2, 2009 12:58 PM

By the Way...how did that work out anyway?? Does that say anything about Nixon being a comeback kid, or does it reflect on poor choices by the Americans in electing and relecting corrupted politicians?

When will we learn that soundbites and looks shouldn't be criteria for elected office...at any level.

LyndaLBD:

Plenty of politicians have "quit" before becoming President; Richard Nixon famously told the press once: "You won't have Nixon to kick around any more" and then won the Presidency, twice.

Posted by: rizzo101 | October 2, 2009 12:57 PM

I know this may not make a lot of sense to some, but Palin gives a great deal of comfort to middle class Americans who believe in the American dream.

Posted by: JAH3 | October 2, 2009 12:57 PM

Agree with Fate1 - The Republicans I knew as a youth were pragmatic leaders, who really meant it when they said they wanted fiscal prudency. Before people like DeLay, Hastert, Bush II discovered Bank of China's unlimited credit line. The Republicans I knew as a kid, even Nixon, had their progressive, visionary side. They were the ones that rebuilt their Party after the Goldwater debacle. Goldwater wasn't Perfect, Pure, and Principled in a way no Republican in California, the Midwest, and East Coast couldn't be...he was a catastrophy.

The Southern Religious Right people now calling other Republicans RINOs didn't even vote for Nixon after Goldwater in large numbers. George Wallace had their hearts in 1968.

The Republicans I knew and know still exist out there are the ones that did all the jobs in small towns and large unions didn't control, they were the people with other than liberal arts college degrees and small business owners and those who aspired to such. Many are 90% in agreement with Republican traditional beliefs, but have rejected Republicans over mindless bootlicking to the NYC Corporatists and Jewish Financiers they ALWAYS distrusted. Or mindless grovelling to the neocons and endless wars fought for "go anywhere, do anything to help our friends and bring freeom to Freedom Lovers!!" creed...which is just a twisted variant of JFK's call to obligation in lives and treasure to "save the noble Vietnamese from themselves".
And many just reject the whole mindlessness of "abortion even in the 1st Trimester is murder", "evolution is wrong", Terri Schiavo must be as alive and as aware as Rick Santorum, "it's us against them (minorities)".

Posted by: ChrisFord1 | October 2, 2009 12:56 PM

PurlGurl,
I think you must be living in a Fox News bubble. Here's a test. True or False:
The American people overwhelmingly want a public option in health insurance?

True: You do not live in that bubble.
False: You live inside the Fox News bubble.

Posted by: Fate1 | October 2, 2009 12:38 PM

______________

Sorry Fate1, you need to stop looking at the CNN polls. Further, the Democrats have forgotten the Golden Rule of elections. Never PO the retired vote. In the 2010 elections the Democrats are going to be swept out of office. The only question is how many seats they will lose. If they lose over 41 seats in the Congress they lose control. Some are predicting a 50 to 70 seat shift.

Even the Spendocrats are reading the handwriting on the wall and are looking for cover. The bloom is off Obama as he drags himself back to DC with his tail between his leg. Whoever told him to go to Copenhagen had their head in a warm place. Must have been Obama's bosses in Chicago.

"Just 41% of voters nationwide now favor the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s down two points from a week ago and the lowest level of support yet measured.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% are opposed to the plan.

Senior citizens are less supportive of the plan than younger voters. In the latest survey, just 33% of seniors favor the plan while 59% are opposed. The intensity gap among seniors is significant. Only 16% of the over-65 crowd Strongly Favors the legislation while 46% are Strongly Opposed.

Although I opposed Palin last year, I became frustrated with people who derided her intelligence. That was not only rude, but also missed the larger picture. Palin seems incurious in the same way as Reagan and Bush 43. She acts as if possessing knowledge and information are less important than having the "right" worldview or attitude, and doesn't seem open to information that might contradict her worldview. Some of her statements and positions last year sounded uncomfortably close to Christian nationalism, and I can imagine her in 2012 winning the support of the James Dobsons and Tony Perkinses by promising to feed the First Amendment into the shredder.

Posted by: Carstonio | October 2, 2009 12:55 PM

I agree Sarah Palin would be a disastorous nominee. With Cheney and Palin as the two most prominent spokepersons, and with amember of the peanut galley shouting to the president that he is a lier, the Republican Party is increasing looking like the party of far right-wing kooks. That is no way to get back to power. I say this as an independent voter who wants to see a strong Republican Party. It needs to speak with a more responsible voice.

Posted by: diver110 | October 2, 2009 12:54 PM

Come on Sarah... you've had plenty of time to think about what newspapers you read and what Supreme Court decisions have been made.

Prove to the world you're not just an ACTRESS reading other peoples speeches and can think for yourself... it's time you appear on "MEET THE PRESS."

LOL, Saturday Night Live could use the material.

Posted by: republican_disaster | October 2, 2009 12:54 PM

MollieKaye:

Don't be mistaken, if she runs for the GOP nomination, she will get it.

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 12:51 PM

P.S. I voted for Alan Keyes because that'll teach the GOP to go more right, durn it!

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 12:44 PM

Sounds as if the imploding has begun in the GOP and her book ignited it. The most important part of being an politician is that you know how to win friends and influence people - at least in a democracy.

I'm sure the GOP would rather deal with her, Huckabee, Beck, etc. now - rather than when the next POTUS election is in full gear.

In the meantime, it's a little like watching like Lord of the Flies play out.

Posted by: MollieKaye | October 2, 2009 12:43 PM

I like the fact that she doesn't ever do what's expected of her. She's a true rogue!

Posted by: motorfriend | October 2, 2009 12:43 PM

ModerateVoter and Vickie803:

We'll see, I guess.

I know that you and Steve Schmidt don't really like social conservatives, yet he takes that part of the GOP "base" for granted while reaching out to "liberal" Republicans. Sarah Palin doesn't. If you don't think there's enough "grassroots" support for her getting nominated, why is her book #1 at BOTH Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble, even though it doesn't come out until NOVEMBER?

"Palin / Bachmann 2012!"
God love you...remember when Rush demanded that his followers (Baa-Baaaaa!) vote Clinton in the Dem primaries? Wouldn't it be great if everyone voted for Palin in the Rep ones?
I think it's great that AKCoyote and his/her gang think that McCain lost because he was too moderate...As if the Palin lovers said, "Screw McCain, I'm voting for Obama instead, because that'll teach the GOP to go more right, durn it!"
Priceless.

Posted by: DAMNEDGENTLEMEN | October 2, 2009 12:42 PM

PurlGurl,
I think you must be living in a Fox News bubble. Here's a test. True or False:
The American people overwhelmingly want a public option in health insurance?

True: You do not live in that bubble.
False: You live inside the Fox News bubble.

Posted by: Fate1 | October 2, 2009 12:38 PM

I know many life long republicans that did not vote republican (many for the first time) just because of palin. Having her a second time on the ticket will not bring them back.

Posted by: ModerateVoter | October 2, 2009 12:36 PM

JakeD mused: "Sarah Palin has won several elections."

In a small town and in the smallest (population) state.

JakeD mused: "She had more "experience" than Obama did. That argument's not going to fly twice."

And a communications degree from U. of Idaho which took her 6 years to get through 5 different colleges. In 2012 Obama will have had 4 years of presidential experience. Add that to the law degree from Harvard and any statement that Palin is as experienced as Obama will cause people to spit out whatever they are drinking and then laugh for about 5 minutes.

Posted by: Fate1 | October 2, 2009 12:32 PM

Awesome!

Posted by: MollieKaye | October 2, 2009 12:32 PM
*************
Ditto

Posted by: Vickie803 | October 2, 2009 12:35 PM

She would be a great candidate for the President of Texas after they secede. They will need a strong "war" president for the war with Mexico. Hopefully by then we will have completed our border wall seperating Texas from the United States. We wouldn't want any Texas immigrants crossing illegally into America.

Posted by: ejoedirte | October 2, 2009 12:35 PM

It makes a lot of sense to listen to the loser Scmidt about who the GOP should pick in 2012. /sarcasm.

No, we will look to Huckabee, Palin, or perhaps Bobby Jindal. No more moderates like Dole and McCain telling us how to win elections. And please no more Romneys and Giuliani's.

David Shedlock

Posted by: grassboots | October 2, 2009 12:33 PM

Please nominate the stupid cow.

Posted by: jojo22 | October 2, 2009 12:31 PM

***********
No doubt, it would be entertaining and a needed relief from election stress. The woman wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell with an educated electorate.

Posted by: Vickie803 | October 2, 2009 12:33 PM

JakeD mused: "Sarah Palin has won several elections."

In a small town and in the smallest (population) state.

JakeD mused: "She had more "experience" than Obama did. That argument's not going to fly twice."

And a communications degree from U. of Idaho which took her 6 years to get through 5 different colleges. In 2012 Obama will have had 4 years of presidential experience. Add that to the law degree from Harvard and any statement that Palin is as experienced as Obama will cause people to spit out whatever they are drinking and then laugh for about 5 minutes.

Posted by: Fate1 | October 2, 2009 12:32 PM

Awesome!

Posted by: MollieKaye | October 2, 2009 12:32 PM

Posted by: Bubbette1 | October 2, 2009 12:11 PM
Palin would have been a vast improvement over the disaster of Obama's Administration. The stench of Obama's incompetence is becoming a concern to the EPA.

*********
What? The woman does not have a functioning intellect; how could she govern this country?

Posted by: Vickie803 | October 2, 2009 12:31 PM

This progressive hopes Palin runs. It would be very entertaining and another crushing defeat for the GOP. Please nominate the stupid cow.

Posted by: jojo22 | October 2, 2009 12:31 PM

Can we please start making a distinction between social conservative and fiscal conservative? That doesn't even come close to capturing the various viewpoints that compose the Republican party, but it might help siphon off the non-starter conversation about who's more "Republican." It's very clear that there's an overlap between the two camps, but a lot of people in one camp who find the other to be anathema.

Someday there may be a socially liberal but fiscally conservative party that understands the among the obligations of small government is one to pay for a basic social safety net for 100% of its citizens. Until then, unfortunately, I'm stuck with the Democrats, because at least they don't scare me with their small-minded xenophobia and imagined religious mandate.

Posted by: StrPrpn | October 2, 2009 12:29 PM

DAMNEDGENTLEMEN comments, "Do you really think you'll pull in votes from the middle by going...farther Right?"

Your logic is less than stellar.

Last November, Independents voted far left, voted Obama into office. America suffers because of this. This vote for extreme left socialism was not based upon Obama the man rather was based upon backlash against George Bush and the Republican party in general. This backlash was justified but voting for socialism can never be justified.

In 2010 year, Democrats will be swept out of office. This will be backlash against Obama and left liberal socialism. In 2012 year, Obama and Democrats will be swept out of office. Again, this will be backlash against this left liberal agenda.

By 2012 our nation will be far right conservative. This plays well into Palin's political poker hand.

Clearly you do not well understand our American political process which proves to be aggravating at times. Our nation is stuck in extreme swings, for now; there is no political "middle of road" for America for years to come.

Palin enjoys an excellent shot at the presidency in 2012 year because of these political extreme swings by our peoples.

However, Palin is not far right rather she is common sense right of center. Her popularity is based upon Palin being one of us, being an average ordinary American.

Palin commands a vast populous group and movement. Palin represents what Americans want; a common sense approach to governing.

Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Puma Politics

Posted by: PurlGurl | October 2, 2009 12:29 PM

RedBird27:

If Sarah Palin DOESN'T get the Republican nomination, expect to see a huge grassroots movement to get her to run as a third-party candidate.

LyndaLBD:

Plenty of politicians have "quit" before becoming President; Richard Nixon famously told the press once: "You won't have Nixon to kick around any more" and then won the Presidency, twice.

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 12:29 PM

Vickie803:

Sarah Palin has won several elections.

Ski_Tahoe62:

She had more "experience" than Obama did. That argument's not going to fly twice.

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 12:24 PM

If they put Palin on for 2012 I think it'll be a great year for a third party to field a runner.

I didn't leave the GOP - they left me.

Posted by: RedBird27 | October 2, 2009 12:23 PM

I for one will not vote for her. I'm smart enough to know a quitter when I see one. I finished High School, a Tech Voc School, the Army, and didn't quit. But she quit her position as Governor of Alaska - that says she can't finish what she starts. I will do all I can to help make sure She DOESN'T Win!

Posted by: LyndaLBD | October 2, 2009 12:22 PM

Ski_Tahoe62 wrote: "The truth is. Who else do they (the GOP) have? There is no other well known, young "attractive" politician in their party."

Attractive? hmmm, maybe, but she's what, 46? In 2012 she will be around 50. Her ovaries will be getting ready to shut down. Do you uknow what that does to a woman? Ask any post-menopausal woman. Name another attractive woman over 50 in politics.

If all Palin has is her looks, and that appears to be the case, 2012 will be her last shot. Of course she could get some nipping and tucking with the millions she is making now, but what matters most for a 50+ old woman in politics is her brains, and Sarah just ain't got them.

Posted by: Fate1 | October 2, 2009 12:22 PM

Surely there is no one associated with any serious political party stupid enough to think Palin could win an election. Never mind being stupid enough to think she could win, but stupid enough to want that woman in the White House.

Posted by: Vickie803 | October 2, 2009 12:18 PM

The truth is. Who else do they (the GOP) have? There is no other well known, young "attractive" politician in their party. To make a sports analogy, she is not unlike the NY Yankees or the Dallas Cowboys. People either love them (her) or hate them (her).

Unless the party is secretly grooming someone else, they have three years to turn any negative publicity into good publicity, if the party really thinks she is the next big star. Dropping out of the Governor's office unexpectedly, certainly doesn't help her lack of experience, however.

It's all speculation at this point. What we do know, however, is that the GOP has a major identity crisis. What do they stand for? And who do they have to embody their stances? Every Republican seems to have a different answer. The party needs new leadership and direction. And the shots at Obama and the Left are just going to get old, if they haven't already.

Posted by: Ski_Tahoe62 | October 2, 2009 12:15 PM

If Palin runs, I foresee a massive power struggle within the GOP that will lead to a formal split between the traditional meat-and-potatoes conservatives and the Christian nationalists. But which faction will capture control of the party and which one will leave to form its own? The religious right could join or ally with the theocratic Constitution Party. What's your prediction?

The issue with the religious right is not necessarily its social positions but its stated reasoning for them. This group uses its sectarian religious doctrine to justify its agenda, sometimes claiming explicitly that the agenda was dictated by its god. This would be objectionable no matter what positions the group advocated.

Posted by: Carstonio | October 2, 2009 12:12 PM

incredulousinBoyntonBeach said, "We are not by and large a nation of scholars, or independent thinkers, or logicians. We are a nation of individuals whose average IQ is, alas, approximately 100 and whose mediocre-at-best educational backgrounds do not do justice to that IQ level."

Correct, we elected Obama as proof of this proposition. Palin would have been a vast improvement over the disaster of Obama's Administration. The stench of Obama's incompetence is becoming a concern to the EPA.

Posted by: Bubbette1 | October 2, 2009 12:11 PM

Another great thing would be a Palin/Huckabbee ticket, because that annihilation would be so complete that even the GOP would probably finally come off the pretension that they support the extremist religious element in America. Let's see, you had GWB in office 8 years, and how many laws restricting illegals, abortions, and gay stuff did HE pass? Oh, that's right, none. The GOP rarely does more than pay lip service to your small minded minority. At least the Dems are honest about it, and would usually rather talk about issues and solving problems than the long-used (because it works) GOP strategy of blowing sunshine up your arses or scaring the bejeebers out of you to get your vote. The GOP has repeatedly betrayed you, much like the Dems seem to be doing to the gays. Lotsa talk, not a lot of anything else.
Memo to the extreme Right: pack your stuff and move to Iran, because that is the only place your extremist views will gain any traction. Here in America, we believe in freedom for all way more than your hypocritical 'freedom for some' views, and you will never exert significant political power in this country. Get used to it.

Posted by: DAMNEDGENTLEMEN | October 2, 2009 12:08 PM

I find the term RINO interesting considering the republican party I knew in my youth was less religious than the democratic party is today. It backed many social causes that today would be called "liberal", like the creation of the national highway system (socialist transportation and patterned off of hitler's autobaun) and the National Cancer Institute for example. The republican argument against welfare was mostly based on fiscal arguments and government's role. It wasn't until crazy Ronal Reagan came to office that the religious zealots started adding their requirements for theocracy to the platform and government's role, on paper anyway, was severly limited (except things that supported christianity like school vouchers, federal funds for christian charities, etc. That part of the party has grown and taken it over even though the crazies only make up a small percentage of the party. It is they who are the RINOs, pretending to be republicans while actually being the party of christian theocracy. When will the real republican reclaim their party, which actually cared about America improving itself as it did when I was young.

Posted by: Fate1 | October 2, 2009 12:07 PM

Even the Republicans are not stupid enough to give this idiot the nomination. It sure would be funny and entertaining.

Posted by: notabeliever | October 2, 2009 12:07 PM

PurlGurl:

Agreed.

newageblues:

President and Vice President of the United States.

Posted by: JakeD | October 2, 2009 12:06 PM

I must disagree with Schmidt's assessment of Palin. I think there are many many voters (of which, I assure you, I am NOT ONE!) who find her extremely attractive. We are not by and large a nation of scholars, or independent thinkers, or logicians. We are a nation of individuals whose average IQ is, alas, approximately 100 and whose mediocre-at-best educational backgrounds do not do justice to that IQ level. If Palin were to run in 2012, there's a very strong likelihood that she would win, because people believe what they hear, and that is a function of HOW it's delivered, not what's said.

Alas.

Posted by: incredulousinBoyntonBeach | October 2, 2009 12:06 PM

"This should get the nasty comments flowing.....

Palin / Bachmann 2012!

Posted by: AkCoyote | October 2, 2009 11:55 AM"

Ok, I'll bite. Palin/Bachman for what? President or Grand Inquisitor?

Posted by: newageblues | October 2, 2009 12:01 PM

Palin is not the only candidate hoping the country moves sufficiently in her direction that she does not have to expand her base. At least she's pretty upfront about appealng only to the most conservative parts of her party. George W. told us in 2000 he was a uniter not a divider, and look how that turned out: one of the most ideologically narrow and unyielding presidents we've ever had. With Palin you would likely get what you see. A scarey thought, but if you vote for her you have no excuses later.

Posted by: Sutter | October 2, 2009 11:59 AM

Cheney and Palin in 2012 or Palin and Cheney. You know like Bush and Cheney. There are enough idiots in this nation to make it a close race - a winning ticket for the GOP and a disaster for this nation. OH WELL, PRAISE THE LORD ANYWAY. And go into the waterboard specialities.

Posted by: MissClarty | October 2, 2009 11:57 AM

Sarah Palin was a horrific mistake, who should pursue another line of work like selling AVON products or AMWAY. Sen. Olympia Snow from R-Maine would be a far better choice for the Republican Party in 2012; she has experience, intelligence, and a desire to cooperate and achieve real results (not just a phony office holder).

Posted by: brt30 | October 2, 2009 11:57 AM

This should get the nasty comments flowing.....

Palin / Bachmann 2012!

Posted by: AkCoyote | October 2, 2009 11:55 AM

When you get sick hearing about Sarah Palin remember who put her in the spotlight, and the GOP and talk show host who touted her as better than sliced bread.

The GOP and backers cannot stand the truth.

Posted by: COWENS99 | October 2, 2009 11:54 AM

Purlgurl, I wish I could kiss you...you keep those blinders on and scream and yell until you get the Barracuda into the 2012 GOP nomination. I sleep comfy every night I think of that race.
I'll make it simple for you: Many GOPers held their nose to vote for McCain, and the ONLY reason it was close (if you can call the Nov. 08 bloodbath "close") is because McCain was relatively moderate.
Do you really think you'll pull in votes from the middle by going WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY farther Right?
Good luck with that. You might ask Mike "Who?" Huckabee how that's working out.
P.S. When did Arizona become the new Crazyville, U.S.A.? I musta missed the memo. I bet the 'real' South is green with envy...

Posted by: DAMNEDGENTLEMEN | October 2, 2009 11:54 AM

rjma1 comments, "What is particularly telling is that the title of her new best-selling book is 'Going Rogue' which celebrates her...."

Our America is based upon our founding fathers "Going Rogue". Those who created our nation centuries back remain very popular.

Many of our national heroes, such as Martin Luther King, became heroes by "Going Rogue". Many of our military soldiers win medals by "Going Rogue". Truth is often found and exposed by those "Going Rogue" such as a young couple posing as pimp and prostitute.

You are attempting to change the context of an expression to effect your personal political agenda.

There are those who consider yours to be deceit.

Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Puma Politics

Posted by: PurlGurl | October 2, 2009 11:54 AM

Having Sarah Palin on the Presidential ticket again is only catastrophic for the people who want to compromise everything rather than stand for something. The snide remarks by the liberals and the RINOs about Sarah Palin only demonstrate how arrogant that they are about their viewpoints. Conservatives are not merely limited to the Southeast. They are a growing force once again all over America. Strong evidence of this can be seen with the ever more popular Tea Party movement. Sarah Palin will be in good stead when this nation slowly figures out the tragic mistake that it made in electing Barack Obama. I just hope that Obama and his corrupt Liberal cronies don't inflict so much damage to this nation that we will never be able to recover from it in our lifetimes.

Posted by: honorswar26 | October 2, 2009 11:52 AM

What is particularly telling is that the title of her new best-selling book is "Going Rogue" which celebrates her...well...rogueishness. Hardly the kind of thing that will expand her appeal. But she's going to make plenty of money.

Posted by: rjma1 | October 2, 2009 11:45 AM

McCain's campaign manager,Steve Schmidt, is an authority on disastrous candidates.

Sarah Palin won't run in 2012. She's all about making money for now and she'll do well in that regard. She also has an infant with special needs so may well be focusing on him for now.

She's only 45 years old. If she still has political ambitions, she has many election opportunities beyond 2012 to further them.

Hopefully by then she'll have worked on backing up her political talents with more substance.

Posted by: DagnyT | October 2, 2009 11:45 AM

She quit public service to sell books... what a true real american/maverick/patriot! Will she ever go away?

Posted by: dan1005 | October 2, 2009 11:41 AM

I pray to God Sarah Palin runs in 2012.

Posted by: metroman76 | October 2, 2009 11:35 AM

Is there anything more exciting than GOP in-fighting? I don't think so!

Posted by: lindalovejones | October 2, 2009 11:23 AM

Steve Schmidt suffers virtually zero credibility. Schmidt displays behavior of a jealous and vindictive child spreading school yard bully gossip. His handling of internal affairs of the McCain presidential campaign reflect Schmidt is not the brightest color in the crayon box.

Steve Schmidt, long back I dismissed him as a blowhard rumor mongerer. He is an ignorant git.

Down in Arizona a grassroots effort is moving forward to have McCain voted out of office for his being a "Republican In Name Only" (RINO) much like Mark Kirk over in Illinois is suffering serious setbacks for his being a RINO.

Schmidt, McCain, Kirk, those boys remind me of the Three Stooges; right funny boys.

Sarah Palin is extremely popular, enjoys a large number of dedicated supporters, is expanding her base of power and is emerging as a true and sincere Republican. In comparison to both McCain and Kirk, darling Sarah would whip both their butts easily during any election.

Rather ironic, the more Schmidt and other failed campaign types rag on Palin, the more our mainstream media rags on Palin, the more popular and powerful she becomes.

Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Puma Politics

Posted by: PurlGurl | October 2, 2009 11:16 AM

No doubt! Is the GOP THAT self-destructive?

TGIF

Posted by: free-donny | October 2, 2009 11:15 AM

Well, it's only catastrophic if the GOP wishes to be a major national party. I'm not sure that's at the top of their agenda these days.

Posted by: nodebris | October 2, 2009 11:14 AM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.